Talk:William Safire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

---

If you are going to have any feature on Safire, surely you need to give some real detail on his background. For example, he often writes Zionist-sounding stuff on Israel, but is he Jewish?

Contents 1 Last two paragraphs of main article 2 pulitzer price 3 On Language 4 Category: American Linguists 5 eh.. for the sake of amusement 6 Commentary Wrong

[edit] Last two paragraphs of main article

The tone and emphasis in the last two paragraphs of the main article seem very un-NPOV. He's written about a lot more in his career of column-writing than just Iraq. These paragraphs seem specifically aimed at vilifying him in the context of current events, rather than contributing to a biographical encyclopedia entry.

[edit] pulitzer price

On the pulitzer... I don't point out that just about every body in the beltway investigated and found nothing, just that the charges were never boarn out. I think this is important because a journalist should... be able to find good facts. Pdbailey 23:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] On Language

It should also be pointed out that his convervative viewpoint carries over into his On Language column, frequently taking not-so-subtle jabs at Democrats in the sentences he uses as examples of word usage. This, of course, is common knowledge yet the Times continues to overlook it.

OH NOEX! POLITICAL CONTENT IN A NEWSPAPER!?!!? Get a grip, pal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.180.142 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category: American Linguists

As far as I am aware, Safire is not a linguist, but a popular writer on grammar and etymology. He has done no significant work in linguistics, doesn't have a degree in linguistics or a related field, and doesn't seem to be interested in linguistics at all. 69.109.223.92 13:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eh.. for the sake of amusement

you think you'd ever write a bit on the masons in jerusalem/us & uk? ... and the ties to religion... and the general direction of the media's money (while you're at it)

[edit] Commentary Wrong

Talking about his politics, the article states:

"Many readers who followed his columns in the New York Times felt dismayed when he consistently brought up the point that Iraqi intelligence agents met with the 9/11 attackers in Prague, Czech Republic[1]. This theory had been debunked by the CIA and other credible intelligence agencies. Still Safire kept insisting that this theory was true and used this theory to make a case for war against Iraq."

This actually was true. I don't see the source they said that the theory had been debunked by intelligence agencies. Quite the contrary, the 9-11 Commission Report stated on pp66-67 that Saddam Hussein's agents had indeed met with Al Qaeda operatives and talked about some collaboration, though nothing really came about the meetings. Still, the assertion that there was no meeting in the first place is completely false as per the bipartisan 9-11 Commission report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnabdas (talk • contribs)

No, this was most likely false - in any case, no solid evidence has been found for this, despite years of efforts by governments, intelligence agencies and media reporters. Please read the statement and the source more closely. You are confusing the 9/11 attackers with Al Qaeda as a whole, and "Prague, Czech Republic" with "somewhere in the world".

The history of the claim that you are defending is described in great detail and with many sources in the article Atta in Prague. Suffice it to say here that in 2006 even Vice President Cheney has distanced himself from it and stated "We’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11, and President Bush stated "I don't think we ever said — at least I know I didn't say — that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

I don't see the source they said that the theory had been debunked by intelligence agencies - that is true, the source was missing, but you could have found it yourself just by searching for "Prague" in the PDF file of the 9-11 Commission report that you quoted - you would have found a text titled "Atta’s Alleged Trip to Prague" on p. 228-29. I have added it to the article.

On the other hand, it is just not true that "the 9-11 Commission Report ... stated on pp66-67 that a meeting had taken place between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda", as you have written in your addition. Nowhere on these two pages does the 9-11 Commission mention a meeting between Saddam Hussein (personally) and Al Qaeda.

Regards, High on a tree 21:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)